Peter Kenyon

Standards in Public Life confused with party funding

Sir Christopher Kelly, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life risks torching his own reputation by opining about a recent inquiry into the funding of political parties.

According to the BBC report of his press conference earlier today about a survey into public trust in our politicians:

Sir Christopher told a press conference in Westminster this morning that he was concerned by the lack of resolution within Parliament over party funding.

He called for political parties "to have the courage to work together to reach a consensus" and said it was "a matter of great dismay that this has not happened and may not happen until after the next election".

Interviewed later on the BBC TV One o'clock news he explicitly refered to the doomed Hayden Phillips Inquiry. I shall be sending him copies of my main pieces on party funding published in Chartist, here , here and, if you have access to a proper library, Chartist #212 when I reviewed the Electoral Commission report on party political funding (2004). I warned prior to publication of Hayden Phillips updated report in 2007:

The unsuspecting public should beware. This is no innocent inquiry.

I look forward to your graceful retraction, Sir Christopher, pending proper consideration as would become someone in your position with a reputation to consider as much as any politician.

Labour's cash for access search reported back on

Times online is reporting that Labour's search for cash for access continues. If true this underlines the enormity of the task facing the next General Secretary. Will the sucessful candidate have the ego-strength to tell Gordon Brown that this is not only damaging the Party's standing with the electorate, it is delaying further the prospect of rebuilding the Party itself? Individual members, together with affiliates are the sources of the most reliable regular funding sufficient to meet the Party's needs, providing election spending is capped. But no credible fundraising from individuals can start until members have a say and their trust in party democracy is restored.

Funding Labour - is the 1000 club cash for access?

Three months ago I was recently sent an invitation to join the Labour Party's 1000 club. It wasn't cold calling. A colleague and I had a meeting with a party official and mentioned that neither of us had ever been asked about contributing more to the Party. Somewhere in an Intray the form is still there unanswered.

For anyone wondering about how the Party is ever going to repay its debts, consider the following:

- would you donate money to an organisation that is not accountable to its own members?

- would you donate money to an organisation that does not give members a say?

- what is the Party offering to prospective members of its 1000 club?

What I can't get out of my head is that the idea that the 1000 club as currently organised is a form of seeking cash for access.

This is what Lord Sawyer says it offers:

For the minimum donation of £100 per month (or £1,200 per year) you will receive:

• A complimentary pass to Annual Conference

• Invites to Christmas and summer receptions

• Reduced ticket prices for our gala and other fundraising dinners

• Notification of similar events taking place in your region

If I were to give £100 a month to the Party, I'd give it because I believe in what the Party stands for. In its turn the Party would, I would like to think, value my contribution, but in the same way it would value a member only able to afford the Youth or Reduced rate. Am I being too idealistic? Or is the Party going to have to radically rethink its fundraising strategy to win back the trust of the electorate?

The LabOUR Commission certainly thought an ethical fundraising policy needed to be agreed in time for the 2007 Conference. Why was nothing done? Are there not enough principled donors among Labour Party members and supporters? Or is that nobody in the Party has bothered to find out?